1. Increasing access and success of Locally Defined Minorities in urban higher education in the Netherlands A national strategy using performance indicators and peer learning to improve institutional performance and commitment Mary Tupan-Wenno Vienna, April 3 2014

2. Why? National urban strategy

3. Sense of urgency Attainment gap & urban demographic developments

4. Quantitative developments of current urban student population University of applied sciences Number of nw-students has increased from 5.334 in 1997 to 14.810 in 2011 (+1748%) 74,4% of the nw-students enrolled in one of the 5 urban institutions The group non-traditional nw-students is growing: 26% in 1997 to 33% in 2011

5. Quantitative developments of current urban student population University of research sciences Number of nw-students has grown from 1.518 in 1997 to 3.835 in 2011 (+153%) ± 70% of the nw-students enrolled in one of the 5 urban institutions The group non-traditional nw-students is growing: 36% in 1997 to 47% in 2011

6. Quantitative developments of current G5 student population Retention bachelor after 1 year G5 2007 Native 2010 Native 2007 NW 2010 NW Universities of applied sciences 65% 55% Δ 10% 52% Δ 13% Research universities71%73%66% Δ 5% 65% Δ 8%

7. The Netherlands 1996 – 2050 Source: Central Bureau for the Statistics

8. California 1970 – 2040  Urban NL? The Netherlands 1996 – 2050 UCLA: Abel Valenzuela

9. Share of (non western) ethnic groups in urban education Primary education  50% Secondary education  45% Higher education  30%

10. Aims and previous developments National urban strategy

11. Aims national strategy To increase (retainable) enrollment of nw-students into higher education To enhance academic success among nw-students, to close the gaps between nw-students and native students

12. Continuing on previous developments 2002 – 2005: improving access and success on an institutional level learning using good practices from abroad with seven pilot institutions  initiated by ECHO (1,1 mln) 2006 – 2008: continuing the process on an institutional level with 21 institutions  initiated by ECHO in collaboration with the Ministry (3,8 mln) 2007: document initiated by urban UAS “Motoren voor de Kenniseconomie” 2008 – 2013: urban programs to improve access and success with 10 urban institutions  initiated by the Ministry (40 mln)

13. Dilemma’s in previous developments 1.Generic or specific policy 2.Commitment and support 3.Autonomy of university faculties/departments 4.Diversity as a priority 5.Continuity

14. Levels of intervention National urban strategy

15. Areas of intervention (meta) System of education Learning environment Images & expectations

16. Challenging the Social Dimension learning environment images & expectationsSystem/structure sense of belonging of students & staff ECHO

17. Areas of intervention (institutional) Student Faculty Management Curriculum

18. Pathway interventions Access Access and Success Preparation  Access  Success

19. Conditions Vision and mission on high expectations Commitment on all levels Awareness and Attitude of faculty and other professionals working with students Accountability

20. Learning from good practices abroad

21. Good practices UCLA & UD: inclusive excellence UCLA & CSU: successful retention and graduation programs Chicago, Denver, Toronto: pathway approaches, urban collaboration MU: institutional development  CDO DC (TRIO): peerlearning on a national level Australia: working with performance indicators

22. Inclusive Excellence ‘Inclusion is the engagement with diversity in the service of learning and knowledge development, throughout the educational experience and by all members of the campus community’ It requires higher education to re-envision diversity and inclusion as critical processes through which we create new forms and levels of excellence in teaching, research, learning, student development, workforce development, institutional functioning and more.’ AACU Alma R. Clayton-Pedersen, Nancy O’Neill & Caryn McTighe Musil

23. Pedagogy of excellence (UCLA) High expectations  building on students strengths instead of deficiencies High level of support (peer mentoring, -tutoring, -counseling) Early outreach and academic preparation Creating a campus climate where students feel included and involved  create a sense of belonging Awareness on students cultural and social identity

24. Translation to the Dutch context is challenging Inclusion Holism High Expectations Sense of belonging Awareness on students cultural and social identity

25. Peerlearning and performance indicators An integrated approach

26. Peerlearning as a means To achieve aims To raise awareness To develop performance indicators To support institutional coordinators To learn from each other  intervision To advise institutions

27. Process of Performance indicators ECHO developed a quantitative and qualitative zero measurements analysis for institutions with recommendations ECHO had an advisory role to institutions in the process of developing and setting the indicators ECHO advised the ministry on how realistic and ambitious indicators of institutions were ECHO developed interim and final reports  Transparency and trust was crucial

28. Performance indicators Have to be realistic though ambitious Indicators have to be in sync with the institutional plans and ambitions (general as well as specific plans) There was also a lot of discussion on causality, the value of success and impact on an institutional and individual level

29. Developing Performance indicators Enrollment First year retention Graduation

30. Looking back Developing performance indicators raised awareness on the importance of monitoring and evidence The qualitative analysis provided a better view of the success of institutions, of departments of institutions, of project results of student engagement and on the societal role and vision of the institution but also on the arreas of intention.

31. Methodological justification (final report) Quantitative analysis Desk research => ten good practices Interviews with board members of G5 institutions Four meetings with panels of professionals from institutions (leaders and participants academic success programs) Interviews with students (24)

33. Success factorsChallenges Strategic agendaProgram embedded in strategic plan institution Consistent strategy Different dynamics agenda ministry & institutions Political instability DNA institutionScientific debate/discourse Emancipatory tradition Lack of diversity competences staff InclusivenessDiversity is part of main strategy Engagement of academic staff in diversity issues Engagement of students and staff Generic policy translated to specific aims Too much focus on generic approach No commitment discussion specific student groups Integration debate in society Little knowledge about other cultures Implicit bias Diversity = deficiency

34. Success factorsChallenges Educational visionInterventions lead to academic confidence Involvement of students into policy development Structure, small groups and strong focus on individual academic success Individual support infrastructure No commitment faculty/staff Insufficient financial resources (outreach activities) Pedagogy is not well adapted to a diversified student population Interventions are not integrated in curriculum Management philosophy Personal engagement of the board Continuity and consistence Ownership teachers/staff No pilot strategy Responsibilities are unclear Policy competition central – decentralised Interventions too small and labor intensive Evidence-based working Audit 2010 Monitoring and evaluation on results and effects Lack of clear framework Tension performance agreement and generic approach No quality criteria interventions Lack of data Intervention are too small and fragmented, no impact

35. Results

36. Quantitative aims were only achieve by a few institutions Generic policy or specific policy  intentional policy and practice Developing a support (infra)structure needed Awareness and attitude of faculty and teaching remains an important challenge  Next week strategic meeting with the ministry, leaders of institutions, associations of universities, students and municipalities

37. For futher reading

38. Results (1) More awareness & knowledge on academic success and specific student groups Development of monitoring frameworks More insights into the effects of specific interventions: more integration in the curriculum, support more tailor made programs, consistency between interventions Intensive debates about quality and academic success among teachers/staff Long term focus on academic success and diversity is necessary Long term, programmatic approach is necessary as well

39. Results (2) Teachers get a more important role in enhancing academic success among the students, focus on creating ownership Creating a culture of evidence-based working Knowledge exchange between G5-institutions, establishment of G5 research group (universities of applied sciences) Getting more insight into the success factors of student enrollment (first three months).

40. AngleRecommendations Vision, leadership and policy Develop a strong vision on inclusive education Diversity is not a goal in itself, it is one of the points of departure for developing policies Matching policies ministry – institutions => consistency, sustainability and implementation on all levels (strategic, tactical, operational) Quality criteria ‘inclusive education’ by NVAO Education pipeline Develop a strategic pathway approach from primary school to higher education Collaboration educational institutions and local government More financial resources to improve preparation of students Monitoring consequences of Legislation ‘Kwaliteit in Verscheidenheid’ for underrepresented groups

41. AngleRecommendations Education and organisation Optimal mix of generic and specific measures Professionalising support: support is structural, part of the curriculum and generic and specific as well Develop a set of different support opportunities Focus on student impact and institutional impact Teachers/staffMore engagement starts with awareness about the meaning of inclusive excellence in modern urban areas Equip to educate a strongly diverse student body Diversity competences should be integrated in BKO Training long term, peer review

42. Student impact and institutional impact

43. Professionalising support

44. Thank you very much for your attention Mary Tupan-Wenno Executive Director ECHO President EAN ECHO, Center for Diversity Policy Zuid-Hollandlaan 7 2596 AL Den Haag +31653811172 mary@echo-net.nl